In re J.S.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that courts normally review MHPA commitment procedures even if the patient is discharged because the procedures, which are of great public concern, are capable of repetition and may otherwise evade appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re J.M.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-03-25· cited 46×
• Commonwealth v. Redmond
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-05-21· cited 24×
• In re T.J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-08-19· cited 22×
• Commonwealth v. Wamsher
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-06-26· cited 8×
• In Re JS
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-01-16
• In Re JM
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-03-25

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Revtai
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-10-15· cited 81×
• Eubanks v. Clarke
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1977-07-01· cited 43×
• In re S. C.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-09-19· cited 40×
• Commonwealth v. Hubert
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-07-02· cited 28×
• In Re Condry
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-09-10· cited 23×
• In re S.O.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-05-10· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. Bernhardt
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-11-21· cited 19×
• Commonwealth v. C.B.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-11-30· cited 19×
• Northampton, Bucks County Municipal Authority v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-03-06· cited 10×
• In Re Wilson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-08-20· cited 9×
• Commonwealth v. Wertz
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-04-09· cited 4×